Should EA offer a Siege only subscription for 2.99 a month?

[MoonglowMerchant]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

 

[ColterDC]

No, I think they should be paying us.

 

[Hunters Moon]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

Why should you get to pay less playing SP then what I pay playing on Cats? Because you only get one character? Because of the supposedly "bad service" you get there? You know,no one makes you play in SP so stop your whining.

 

[T_Amon_from_work]

Why should you get to pay less playing SP then what I pay playing on Cats? Because you only get one character? Because of the supposedly "bad service" you get there? You know,no one makes you play in SP so stop your whining.

Read the original idea again carefully ... only Siege. So ... only 1 shard and 1 character on the account.

Really simplifies things and not a bad idea. How many would accept it is totally another question.

 

[Hunters Moon]

Read the original idea again carefully ... only Siege. So ... only 1 shard and 1 character on the account.

Really simplifies things and not a bad idea. How many would accept it is totally another question.

So we would have an option in our accounts for SP only and would block us from playing other shards? I am wondering if $2.99 X number of SP players would be enough to support the servers there.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Yes...la

 

[Maximus Neximus]

I'm going to have to disagree. I think the main thing that keeps people from playing Siege is ROT.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

Why should you get to pay less playing SP then what I pay playing on Cats? Because you only get one character? Because of the supposedly "bad service" you get there? You know,no one makes you play in SP so stop your whining.

It's actually a real question. I'm hoping for real answers.

If you think you are paying too much on Cats, feel free to ask for a lower sub rate or stop playing. The choice is yours.

I'm suggesting a lower sub rate for Siege because I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth at 12.99 a month. The development that there is, and there isn't much, goes mostly to add content designed for production a.k.a. PvM shards while content for Siege a.k.a. the "PvP" shard gets nothing.

 

[Kaj]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

No. I think with the already decreasing UO income, no measures should be implemented that endanger the future of UO.
A $2.99 won't bring in new players. Even if it did, it wouldn't bring in enough people to justify the loss of normal playing customers (4 new Siege accounts versus 1 real account).

 

[Hanna]

I'm going to have to disagree. I think the main thing that keeps people from playing Siege is ROT.

ROT's not that hard, people don't play seige because either they don'tlike pvp or you don't want to buy another account just to have a house on seige which is almost a requirement if you really want to play there.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

No. I think with the already decreasing UO income, no measures should be implemented that endanger the future of UO.
A $2.99 won't bring in new players. Even if it did, it wouldn't bring in enough people to justify the loss of normal playing customers (4 new Siege accounts versus 1 real account).

Good answer. But do you think it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less?

 

[Alrich]

ROT's not that hard, people don't play seige because either they don'tlike pvp or you don't want to buy another account just to have a house on seige which is almost a requirement if you really want to play there.

Its not that rot is hard, but it is boring and requires a lot of patience.


difficulty doesn't turn away people like boring does.

Would you buy a game for your ps3 if it was boring? hell no-- same concept

 

[Righteous]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

Just because you feel that you are not getting your money's worth doesnt mean the rest of us should take up the slack for your disappointment. The hardware, electricity and bandwidth costs still stay the same no matter how many characters you are allowed to have. They will eventually fix the problems that concern you, just be patient.

Righteous.

 

[Hunters Moon]

It's actually a real question. I'm hoping for real answers.

If you think you are paying too much on Cats, feel free to ask for a lower sub rate or stop playing. The choice is yours.

I'm suggesting a lower sub rate for Siege because I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth at 12.99 a month. The development that there is, and there isn't much, goes mostly to add content designed for production a.k.a. PvM shards while content for Siege a.k.a. the "PvP" shard gets nothing.

I don't think I am paying too much at all for the subscription. If you don't feel like you are getting your moneys worth from SP game play,then come back to a production shard,or at least suppliment your SP play with a production shard.Though I do understand your feelings about getting shafted with SP content,asking for a lower rate will kill the game both of us love to play.Am I right?

 

[Kaj]

Good answer. But do you think it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less?

Well, essentially it's the same game and Siege players like a challenge (and less chars is more of a challenge!) and thus choose to play Siege.

They don't get less, they get a different game type. If a Siege player wants more chars he can log onto a regular server .

 

[Mulch]

Offering Siege only with only Felucca for free and $13 for the other facets and a house would help the shard a lot more I guess.


Mulch...a process of inbred fertilization which employs certain decomposed organic materials--including but not limited to animal sediment--to blanket an area in which vegetation is desired. The procedure enriches the soil for the stimulated plant's development while, at the same time, preventing erosion and decreasing the evaporation of moisture from the ground."

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

Well, essentially it's the same game and Siege players like a challenge (and less chars is more of a challenge!) and thus choose to play Siege.

They don't get less, they get a different game type. If a Siege player wants more chars he can log onto a regular server .

But we do get less.

Let me ask you a few questions.

If insurance only worked for half your shard, but worked fine for every other shard do you think EA would fix that? How long do you think it would take?

If no one on your shard could gain magic resist above 90, but every other shard was unaffected, do you think EA would fix that? How long do you think it would take?

If GGS was broken on your shard but worked fine everywhere else, do you think EA would fix that? How long do you think it would take?

*waits*

 

[Krystal]

no it should not be cheaper. all they need to do is fix a couple things, update us to todays demands. and we will be fine. and the #1 fix is rot, and even to let players transfer a char here.

 

[Sarphus]

No. I don't think it's worth use of our limited dev resources.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

No. I don't think it's worth use of our limited dev resources.

Ok, however do you think it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less?

 

[Hunters Moon]

No. I don't think it's worth use of our limited dev resources.

Ok, however do you think it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less?

Again,no one is forcing you to play SP. If you hate it so much then play on a production shard

 

[a drunk elf]

Leave Siege Perilous how it is and give us a Pre-Trammel shard.

 

[Elffin]

I think it could be a good thing, People who pay their $12.99 (or $19.99 if u live in europe... sorry had to get the dig in) per month you could still play Seige, but if you wanted to play seige aswell as other shards u could pay for the seperate account to place a house on your seige only account and co-owner your main account to it. Also if i played Siege permanantly i would rather pay for 4 accounts for $12 and have more than 1 house and more than one char on the shard.

Just my 2 pennies.

Elf.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

Again,no one is forcing you to play SP. If you hate it so much then play on a production shard

I don't hate Siege and I'd never go back to UO-lite. I'm just asking if it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less.

We do get less you know?

 

[ColterDC]

I'm suggesting a lower sub rate for Siege because I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth at 12.99 a month. The development that there is, and there isn't much, goes mostly to add content designed for production a.k.a. PvM shards while content for Siege a.k.a. the "PvP" shard gets nothing.

If only we got what we paid for huh...

Of course if that was true, Everyone currently paying for a UO account should get a free WarHammer account when it comes out....... since we are financing their development.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

If only we got what we paid for huh...

Of course if that was true, Everyone currently paying for a UO account should get a free WarHammer account when it comes out....... since we are financing their development.

If I get a free WarHammer sub you can have it. I'll never play another EA game.

Ever.

 

[Lord Drakelord]

Yes...la

No...la rolleyes:

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

At least it isn't a post asking people on a non UO related board to "click your eggs"...la

 

[Hunters Moon]

We do get less you know?

I know. Thats why I don't play there.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

We do get less you know?

I know. Thats why I don't play there.

And that is why we should pay less.

 

[ColterDC]

I'll never play another EA game.

Ever.

Agreed!!!

 

[Beerman72]

^^^what he said.

 

[Lord Drakelord]

I'll never play another EA game.

Ever.

Agreed!!!

I only play UO.

 

[Landicine]

I only really play on LS, and if I could change some of my accounts to be LS only for a savings, I'd probably do it and open another account for a house with the saved money. I think the idea of a Single Shard account is a neat idea that will never come to pass.

As for Siege only. Why Siege? The one character thing isn't really enough of a reason since houses are probably take up more of the database than characters. Five characters is what, 625 items to keep track of? 684 storage in the smallest house? On a shard like Siege with less people and more space, do many people live in 7x7?

 

[kennykilleduo]

Look in link in siggy....

 

[Joyous2K]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

I would switch.... I would pay 100 bucks to get my chars and their existing, incomplete skills (nothing else) there and then I would pay 2.999 per month.

 

[Leaf]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

Having played on both, I have to agree. Since we only get one character per account, less support, I think it should be cheaper. Going to a prodo shard is not an answer. They are so dam boring thats why we play on Seige. I personally would like to have at least 2 characters per account. THat would be nice.

 

[T_Amon_from_work]

So we would have an option in our accounts for SP only and would block us from playing other shards? I am wondering if $2.99 X number of SP players would be enough to support the servers there.

The way I read it is this ... I have an account for prodo shards. I can play Siege on it, and pay the rate I elected in my subscription.

However, maybe someone has an account where they have given over to Siege only and basically do not play standard shards any more. Convert it to a Siege-only account. Save money over the subscription costs, you end up playing on the shard you have elected to play on.

Or ... you are thinking of dumping your accounts because you're fed up. You do like Siege but don't want to pay for shards you really don't want to play anyway. Convert the account or .... get a new account for the $2.99 rate, sell the others.

 

[kelmo]

*shakes head*

 

[Pyrite]

Good answer. But do you think it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less?

Get less playing Siege?

I have been playing on Siege since its first day, and I get a lot more value by being on Siege than I would on any production shard (yes, I started on a production shard in Oct '97, so I can compare.) Siege is worth the full price. It is even worth the price of multiple accounts. If you feel otherwise, you have not fully played Siege, and not discovered its rich secrets. Keep trying. You are not winning yet.

You think Siege is not getting full service from the Dev team? You should have been around when the Dev Team would not even acknowledge Siege at all for about a year and a half. As a result, true Siege players know how to roll with the punches, and play against all odds. We figure out how to get around every bug and problem. We appreciate every little bit of attention we get from the Dev Team. And we do not whine. We are a tough bunch and know a true value when we see it.

Should you be of such a strong constitution, play hard and with all your heart, you too will find a true value in Siege.

 

[Azureal]

I'm just asking if it is fair for Siege players to pay the same and get less.

No.

Or maybe it should be ok for us "UO-lite" players to pick our own server, and pay less?

Anyone playing Siege, and I emphasize "playing" know what theyre getting. Theres enough horn-tooting about the server and its playerbase to make a sound decision before playing there to know what youre getting.

How long have you played on Siege? How long has your resentment at paying the same price everyone else does been chewing at your mind? And why in Gods name, after having read the ToS and knowing the price schedule did you still sign up, willingly and of your own volition, to play UO?

Youre never ever getting a cheaper, discount rate for playing Siege.

/thread

P.S. Never.

 

[kelmo]

*frowns* No.

 

[Mythic]

ROT's not that hard, people don't play seige because either they don'tlike pvp or you don't want to buy another account just to have a house on seige which is almost a requirement if you really want to play there.

Does knowone live at the inns and out of thier bank box anymore heh, I know I Do

 

[AncientGeek]

Heh, well, aside from "keep dreaming" I will add that customer service is equally awful on every shard, the number of characters created is basically a non-existant cost, so I can't imagine why Seige should be any cheaper than any other shard.

However, I would still say yes to this question since I think the quality of content and service we get lately is only worth 2.99 a month on any shard.

 

[FrejaSP]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

It is a good idea. No more whining about not being able to have a house on Siege. All should be able to affort a Siege account.

New players or old players coming back to UO would choose Siege because it's cheaper and would only see Siege on the shard list.

Players who do play both normal shards and Siege should be able to split their account in a Siege and a normal shards account so they could have a house on both or close down one of the accounts.

I do believe we would get more players on Siege that way, maybe even some from free shards.

De money paid for Siege only accounts should go to devs special working for Siege, no patch should hit Siege without being filtret for trammel code.

Make it 4.99 a month if we get the devs too, own GM's and special Siege events.

 

[FrejaSP]

Heh, well, aside from "keep dreaming" I will add that customer service is equally awful on every shard, the number of characters created is basically a non-existant cost, so I can't imagine why Seige should be any cheaper than any other shard.

1. You do not have to balance the code between Trammel and Felucca, that make it easier and cheaper to make new updates to the shard.

2. Siege do not alot of new items, mobs and events, we just need interact between players to be fun, that be PvP or communities as players towns.

3. We don't need alot of anti grief code like instance corpes, dungeons, stupid flaging rules that prevent you from healing/ressing enemies or other trammel stuff that prevent from killing, looting or stealing from other players.
Also we don't need private houses and auto kick from houses, we need it simple so player justice and player interact have a chance to work.

4. If players want more chars, they will pay for more accounts, money that would go to Siege. I pay for 3 accounts at the moment but sadly my money mostly go to normal shards.

 

[FrejaSP]

Just because you feel that you are not getting your money's worth doesnt mean the rest of us should take up the slack for your disappointment. The hardware, electricity and bandwidth costs still stay the same no matter how many characters you are allowed to have. They will eventually fix the problems that concern you, just be patient.

Righteous.

It's not really about how many chars but about our money going to support for Trammy shards.

I never ever play normal shards, had not done it the last 8 years. Still my money goes to support normal shards.

I would like EA to make my account Siege only and promise me that my money would go to Siege only. I'm tired of paying for Trammel code and even risk to get it dumped on my shard.

 

[Azureal]

It's not really about how many chars but about our money going to support for Trammy shards.

I never ever play normal shards, had not done it the last 8 years. Still my money goes to support normal shards.

I would like EA to make my account Siege only and promise me that my money would go to Siege only. I'm tired of paying for Trammel code and even risk to get it dumped on my shard.

Oh god. Your posts drip with so much anti Trammel vitriol that its almost sickening.
And heres something to consider next time you decide to spew more anti Trammel garbage:

The number of people that Trammel has been able to retain for EA is probably the reason UO is still even open. The money "Siege only" players bring to the game is minimal that EA probably wouldnt miss it if you pakced up and left right now. My money, and the money of all the other Trammel, UO-lite players combined is the reason youre still playing.

I like UHall posts mostly, but this one takes the cake.

Some mod feel free to send it to SnR, before I do my worst to get it locked.

 

[FrejaSP]

Oh god. Your posts drip with so much anti Trammel vitriol that its almost sickening.
And heres something to consider next time you decide to spew more anti Trammel garbage:

The number of people that Trammel has been able to retain for EA is probably the reason UO is still even open. The money "Siege only" players bring to the game is minimal that EA probably wouldnt miss it if you pakced up and left right now. My money, and the money of all the other Trammel, UO-lite players combined is the reason youre still playing.

I like UHall posts mostly, but this one takes the cake.

Some mod feel free to send it to SnR, before I do my worst to get it locked.

I'm not against normal shards, I'm against paying for them when I never use them. Let the ones who play there pay for them.
I'm tired of very little support for Siege.
Each house on Siege and Mugen is an account paying for Siege ruleset, it should be enought to pay the hardware and drift and I think and maybe 1-2 devs.

 

[Azureal]

I'm not against normal shards, I'm against paying for them when I never use them. Let the ones who play there pay for them.
I'm tired of very little support for Siege.
Each house on Siege and Mugen is an account paying for Siege ruleset, it should be enought to pay the hardware and drift and I think and maybe 1-2 devs.

Right...ALL those accounts of Mugen and Siege. I know we will never get concrete figures out of EA, but if you honestly believe theres enough players on those two shards to support hardware maintenance and Devs to provide upgrades/support, youre delusional.


Add to that you want to cut your subscription fee by 70-80% and youre a nutcase.